Replies

My point being that if there are distinctions between various “citizens-at-birth”, some even being naturalized, there can be a distinction between “born in the US” and “born in the US of citizen parents”, essentially between “native born”,(modern meaning) or 14th amendment, and “natural born”. There just have been no Supreme Court cases were such a distinction would matter.

The current US Supreme Court is uninterested in the distinction, having already refused to even look at the issue seven times with specfic reference to Barack Obama.
I think that the strict constructionists on the court take the words “All persons born...” extremely literally.
But I’m willing to bet that if Congress passed laws redefining or further defining a distinction been a citizen-at-birth and a natural born citizen, the Supreme Court would definitely take a look at the issue.

I think that the strict constructionists on the court take the words “All persons born...” extremely literally.

Fine, they are supposed to. But the rest of that is "...are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.". It says nothing about the "term of art" "natural-born citizen". We've already seen that "citizen at birth" or "born citizen" is not the same as "Natural born", in conjunction with those citizens at birth via statute.